The draft AutoSafe™ framework defines intended competence and evidence expectations for crash laboratories, proving grounds, cybersecurity benches and energy-system test facilities. Each facility type focuses on a different dimension of safety and integrity.
The proposed evidence model may use crash facilities, proving grounds, cybersecurity benches, energy-system laboratories and evidence-review capabilities, each operating within a defined and reviewable scope. Under the proposed model, evidence could be accepted only from facilities whose relevant competence, scope, methods, calibration and independence satisfy the released requirements.
Multi-environment Testing
Candidate facilities cover different physical, digital, energy and evidence functions. Operational acceptance depends on released methods, relevant competence, traceable calibration, uncertainty control and reproducibility.
Why AutoSafe™ Facilities Matter
AutoSafe™ ratings are only as reliable as the environments where vehicles are tested. This section explains how facility quality, independence, instrumentation accuracy and data integrity directly influence the trustworthiness of a rating.
- Why advanced crash, cyber and EV test centres are essential.
- How consistency and traceability are maintained across facilities.
- How facility approval ensures unbiased, scientifically valid results.
Types of AutoSafe™ Test Facilities
Different outcomes require different evidence routes. The proposed system distinguishes crash and occupant laboratories, proving grounds, digital-security benches, architecture-appropriate energy facilities and post-crash, production-equivalence and evidence-review capabilities.
Crash & Occupant Protection Labs
Full-scale crash halls equipped with high-speed cameras, dummy instrumentation and advanced data capture.
- Frontal offset & full-width crash test tracks.
- Side impact & pole impact configurations.
- Roll-over rigs and roof strength setups.
- Adult & child dummy injury measurement systems.
VRU & Active Safety Proving Grounds
Realistic test tracks where AEB, lane support and VRU detection systems are validated in dynamic scenarios.
- AEB Car-to-Car & junction scenarios.
- AEB Pedestrian & Cyclist (day & night).
- Lane support and road edge scenarios.
- Variable-adhesion surfaces and gradients.
Digital Integrity & Cybersecurity Labs
Controlled environments for network intrusion testing, OTA validation and keyless security assessments.
- CAN / Ethernet penetration benches.
- Secure OTA & firmware signing verification.
- Keyless entry relay attack simulations.
- Sensor spoofing benches for automated functions.
Energy-System Safety Facilities
Specialised facilities for energy containment, fire and propagation, charging or refuelling, isolation and controlled water-exposure evidence across applicable architectures.
- Battery propagation or fuel and hydrogen release/fire evidence, as applicable.
- Mechanical impact, containment and leakage scenarios defined by a released protocol.
- Controlled water-exposure and recovery scenarios; a generic IP rating alone is not acceptance evidence.
- Post-impact electrical or fuel isolation behaviour.
Production Equivalence & Evidence Review
Support baseline matching, sample comparison, traceability, scoring reproduction and released correlation checks.
- Released baseline and sample matching.
- Evidence traceability and uncertainty review.
- Variant, family and label-release identification evidence.
- Independent scoring reproduction and released correlation checks.
Hybrid & Specialised Facilities
Facilities that combine physical and digital evaluations, or provide highly specialised capabilities.
- HIL/SIL benches linked to physical tests.
- Mixed reality environments for ADAS validation.
- Special rigs for niche or emerging technologies.
Proposed Facility Competence and Acceptance
The draft does not designate a live approved network. Operational acceptance would require evidence that a facility can apply the released methods consistently, control data and remain independent from improper commercial influence.
-
Capability & Infrastructure Review
Facility layouts, equipment, instrumentation, safety systems and staff qualifications are reviewed against IAF requirements for the relevant test types. -
Methodology Alignment
The facility demonstrates that its procedures match AutoSafe™ protocols, including setup, execution, data acquisition, processing and reporting. -
Pilot Tests & Correlation
Selected pilot tests are run and compared against reference results to confirm that the facility produces consistent, reliable outcomes. -
Approval & Scope Definition
Before operational release, IAF would verify competence for the relevant scope, including ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation where applicable, suitable equipment, traceable calibration and reproducible methods. -
Ongoing Oversight
The draft anticipates continuing review through witness activity, proficiency work and data-consistency checks; this page does not claim a currently approved operational network.
Independence & Governance
- Commercial relationships cannot influence individual test results.
- Facility staff follow documented conflict-of-interest rules.
- All results are traceable back to raw data and calibration records.
This ensures that AutoSafe™ decisions remain scientifically defensible, regardless of who funds a test or which brand is involved.
Why Transparent Test Facilities Matter
AutoSafe™ is about trust. Publishing how and where vehicles are tested helps consumers, manufacturers and regulators understand that the final rating is based on real, independently executed tests – not on closed-door declarations.
- After operational release, users should be able to trace a class to the applicable facilities, scopes, methods and evidence identifiers.
- Manufacturers see a clear path to align their internal labs with IAF methods.
- The intended record model would let authorised users trace a rating to its facility, competence scope, protocol revision and evidence identifiers.
IAF AUTOSAFE First Edition
Draft for Technical Review. Consult the full standard for the twelve-domain schedule, evidence rules, mandatory gates and proposed class thresholds.